tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg November 17, 2015 10:00pm-11:01pm EST
. ♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we turn this evening to paris -- 129 people were killed in a series of terrorist attacks on friday that targeted civilians at bars, restaurants, a concert hall and a soccer stadium. the attacks followed two suicide bombings in lebanon and a downing of a passenger plane over egypt. isis has claimed credit. president francois hollande called the attack an act of war and promised a response. french authorities carried out anti-terrorism raids today and
airstrikes against isis targets in syria last night. the 27-year-old belgian man is believed to be the mastermind of the attacks. as of this taping, a search is underway for the eight men involved in the attacks and a belgian national. it prompted new questions about the threat posed by isis and the necessary strategies to defeat it. it has fueled worries about the flood of refugees seeking shelter in europe and the united states. president obama defended his plan to combat isis today. president obama: while we know the difficult roads still ahead, the united states in partnership with our coalition will remain relentless on all fronts, military, humanitarian and diplomatic. we have the right strategy. i don't think i have shown hesitation to act whether it is
with respect to bin laden or sending additional troops or keeping them there. if it is determined it is going to work. charlie: the president says the u.s. will honor its commitments to allow 10,000 syrian refugees to enter the country in the next year. president obama: people who are fleeing syria are the most harmed by terrorism. they are the most vulnerable in consequence of civil war and strife. they are parents. they are children. they are orphans. and, it is very important -- i'm glad to see this was affirmed again and again by the g-20 that we do not close our hearts to these victims. joining me now from paris is roger cohen, a columnist from new york times. also, matt olsen.
peter baker from the new york times. and a french philosopher and author. michael weiss, the co-author of a new book. i'm pleased to have them on this program as we take a closer look at the event in paris and the consequences of what it means for the future. i will begin with peter baker. you know this president as well as anyone and written more and thought more about who he is and what he wants to accomplish and how he has handled crisis. he laid out some of this in the question-and-answer session in turkey. tell us more about how he thinks he sees this and put it in context. peter: what is interesting about his session in turkey today was we often expect our president in moments like this, moments of crisis, moments when the public feels afraid, to give a statement of resolve and determination that we will
defeat the enemy and so forth. what you heard instead was more of an explanation. he wants to show you how his strategy will work even if it does not feel like it. his view of this is that we are doing all the things people say we should do short of putting ground troops into syria which is something he has refused and will continue to refuse to do. he sees that as a repeat of the mistakes of the iraq war. he came into office wanting to get out of this cycle of constant warfare in the middle east. he finds himself heading towards the final chapters of his own presidency. still stuck there and still searching for a way to get us to a place that people will rather be and it is not easy. charlie: he campaigned in 2008 about getting us out of war and now he is being urged to get back involved in order to stop an organization that did not
exist really in a significant way when he won the election in 2008. with respect to the things he laid out, he clearly believes his strategy, will work. is it about a strategy that says we can defeat them on a number of ways, including an air force, but not using significant numbers of ground troops from america and the rest of the world? peter: his view is sending ground troops will not necessarily work because the second you leave, they can come back. we are not in the game of permanent occupation anymore. we have to have a local environment, local people who don't want to accept the extremism of the ideological groups that are trying to make their home there. without that, american troops cannot accomplish anything on a
permanent basis. he also asks the question, what if another one comes from libya? he is clearly looking at this as a slippery slope. the trick is he came across as a little defensive. i think that automatically generates plenty of criticism in washington from people, but usually republicans, who say that is a defeatism or somebody that does not have a strategy at this point. he is only looking to avoid the tougher choices ahead. charlie: you have just returned from the middle east and look at the kurds. tell me how you think the president says and more importantly how does hollande respond to the attacks in paris? >> he responded well and rather bravely. more important than that is he clearly understood that there is two wars.
one war inside, one war outside. one attack in paris, like you had in new york 14 years ago. and one frontline which is the most important, in syria and iraq. what hollande said today, i many political forces in france is that. if you don't eradicate isis at its core which is in syria, and iraq, you will have cancer and metasis for years and years. either you hit there or you will have held here in europe and america. hollande made that very clear. it is not easy for and middle country like france to take this sort of leadership towards the idea of hitting militarily. you can be for him or against.
it is brave and right. charlie: matt olsen, who is right? matt: it is a very difficult situation. this has been a very complicated situation from over a year ago when isis first really came onto the scene from a counterterrorism perspective. i think in terms of what is happening in syria and iraq, i think the president -- i was in the room with the president in many of these discussions -- there were not many good options in having forces on the ground as peter said that can fill in the kind of military ground force. the option of airstrikes in leading a coalition was clearly the right answer. the problem was of course that is not going to stop isis from being able, on smaller scales or even on a more significant scale we saw in paris, be able to send operatives or inspire operatives to carry out attacks.
charlie: tell me about isis. are we looking at the beginnings of the execution of a more global strategy? >> from the very beginning, they have had two strategies. they have had the domestic one which has been superimposed. two countries -- syria and iraq -- artificially created after world war i. the main aspects of the propaganda, you saw them smashing the berms that designated the boundary between those states. they say it is established. the main plank of that strategy is what they call remaining and expanding. massive immigration from america, from great britain, france, the region in the middle east, must come and emigrate to the caliphate. they must have babies, bonds, -- spawns, you know, young child soldiers. women should come and breed. the second part is the foreign expeditionary part. they can see themselves as a state. we like to say they had nothing to do with statehood.
charlie: they were not a state and simply a force. michael: i just got back from turkey where i interviewed a defector from isis, a state security apparatus. jihadi john, steven sotloff said he was from the same security branch. he says they have two towns. they run a city administration. they collect taxes. they go around and inspect restaurants to make sure they are sanitary. they had a penal code. you can take someone to sharia court. you can take the military commander to court if he has been violating the laws and covenants set forth by the islamic state. they have a social services program. health care. if you are a member of isis, you have free health care. you might call it
care. if you have cancer and need chemotherapy, they will pay to send you to turkey and put you in a hotel and pay for all of your expenses so you can be treated. they have this strategy. then they have, of course, the deterrent factor. if you violate their laws, if you are caught smoking cigarettes, and drinking alcohol, they will put you in a cage in the center of town for three days and mark your body with the crime you committed. if you have done something really bad like treason, if you are suspected of being a spy, they will cut your head off and put you on a stick in the middle of town and let it rot for several days. it is a deterrent to stop any resistance. when we say why aren't people rising against the caliphate, it is because they are employing those strategies. charlie: what do you think it takes to defeat them? michael: unfortunately, every military official that i have interviewed, anyone that has any experience, understanding the way they operated in the sunni
tribal parklands, they anticipate boots on the ground at some point. the president says he does not believe that is the right approach even though we are sending 50 special forces into syria. ok?'s the beginning, people need to have realistic expectations. where isis has been defeated geographically, these are places they have bit off more than they can chew. kurdish villages, mixed villages -- where they have not been defeated is sunni areas. this is how they got ramadi facing no resistance. they sent sleepers and spies in advance of military. charlie: the president said two things have to happen. end the war in syria and do something about the sunni-shia. michael: you need to give sunni arabs an alternative. they see the iraqi government as their mortal enemy. many sunnis in iraq see isis as a better alternative than baghdad. the shia militias are in control.
charlie: you say it is a new kind of war without borders. we have to come to the notion we are at war and who we are fighting. tell me more. bernard-henri: we are fighting, first of all, bad soldiers. this is what strikes me when i am on the ground and coming back from sinjar. what strikes me is these terrorists, maybe they are good
terrorists -- very good at beheading. they are not good soldiers. when they face a real army like the syrian forces, they are easily defeated. since the beginning of january 2015, each time they have been confronted on the ground, they lost. in sinjar, everyone said it will be a very difficult battle. we will need days and days of airstrikes and a real -- it took a few hours or even two days. they are bad soldiers. they are much more weak than we believe. a fake state. a state without patriotism. without the real embodiment of state which we know in america or france. in other words, they are strong off our weakness. they are strong only when we are weak. if mr. obama -- i listened very
carefully to what he said. he has today the opportunity to come to the rescue for europe. you americans did that in the first world war. you did that in the second world war. today, there is again a world war of which europe after america is the target. let's unite. let's hope barack obama and francois hollande make a real frontline. vladimir putin has played such a dirty game with bashar al-assad. maybe he has to be on board. charlie: francois hollande is going to washington and then to russia. bernard-henri: the first world war, the second world war.
today, it is world war number three. he will be in front of his true allies. when will be go in front of putin, you will have a long spoon with a little devil in front of him. do not forget that bashar al-assad is one who is responsible for the growth of daesh. bashar al-assad is until thisy putin up minute. all the strikes of putin, of russia, most of the strikes were not to defeat isis, but to reinforce assad. charlie: let me bring roger in. from paris, tell me how you see it. the conversation we have been having and a sense of the mood and the mindset in paris. roger: well, charlie, paris is
subdued, wounded, and very angry. we have the distinction between the anger and resolve of president francois hollande who is clear about the fact that france is at war. the defensive posture of president obama seems to me to be saying we have a losing football team right now, but we will not change it. we are not going to change anything. i think as long as you have isis controlling territory where it can sell oil, you can raise money, it can organize attacks like the bloodshed we have seen in paris. as long as it controls that territory, it has the means to
go on doing more of the same. the president is fond of invoking the history of the last 14 years or so since 9/11. it is full of mistakes. let's recall, when al qaeda attacked new york and washington, the united states decided we are not going any longer to commit al qaeda to have a safe haven, a sanctuary in afghanistan where from which you can organize and direct attacks. we went in and we removed that save haven and then we were distracted by iraq. now the islamic state controlled territory closer to europe, a border with turkey. erdogan has been playing a very ambiguous game.
♪ charlie: peter, the president says essentially that the strategy he has conceived has put his best military advisors has told him. you would know more about that. the president was very firm in saying if you have a better plan, present it. peter: a part of what he said was when he listens to critics, they say you should do more of this and that.
what he hears is i am doing this and that, you just either don't know it or acknowledge it. therefore, the only other choice is boots on the ground. he presents it almost as a binary choice which is something some critics say there are degrees of differences that don't necessarily lead to a ground force of hundreds or thousands of troops. he has been tackling this issue and these issues in afghanistan and iraq for generally seven years. is number one priority has been to avoid another land war in the middle east. roger mentioned afghanistan. he sees iraq. the way he sees this is something that can be even worse than it is now. as frustrating as it seems now, he feels like the solutions that are presented to him that are
more aggressive are ones that would not solve the problem, but create worse problems. that may not be the case, but that is how he looks at it. matt: i agree with peter. what are the other options? there may be opportunities to increase or step up some of the activities we have been taking militarily in syria and iraq. certainly, the airstrikes and in terms of the special operators, a very small number in syria. that gives us the opportunity to increase the number of special operation forces to take additional activities there. really, as long as assad is in power in syria and civil war there continues to rage on, there are really no good options in terms of being able to hold territory in syria. looking for a more diplomatic solution over time is the most effective way to move forward against isis, at least in the near term. charlie: do you think a diplomatic solution is possible?
obviously the powers involved were in vienna trying to hammer out some plan for the future. >> this has been happening for over a year or longer. a lot of that has been tried to be put into place. it is very difficult. russian support for assad has made it more difficult. the idea that assad will be out and the next civil war will end is the best way to stop the migration of foreign fighters to the conflict there and deal with it. having the opportunity to go after isis. charlie: i will ask everybody to
comment on this. it seems to me you are caught -- on the one hand, nobody can point to the indication that you can be successful with air power alone. on the other hand, therefore, you need ground troops. on the other hand, the president says you have a military problem because you can push them out of territory but you have to stay there and hold it or they will return, calling for a kind of occupation force. that seems to be a dilemma. roger: the kurds are holding territory in northern syria. they are holding it pretty effectively. from what he has seen, the islamic state has pretty bad soldiers. the president said we can go into ramadi, go in and take these places. it is just problematic thereafter what we do. right now, there is no sense of urgency. there was no sense of urgency in those comments i heard in turkey. sitting in paris, i was talking today to a guy in a restaurant and his best friend had been killed at the bataclan. seeing panic, 50 people running across the street as they heard a noise. you are sitting in this jittery
city where 130 people have just been killed. you know it can happen again in london or anywhere in europe very soon. it is not enough, i think, to say we got a good strategy. we will just stay with it. it is not enough to say, we have a good strategy and we are just going to stick with it. charlie: the president's policy is not enough. michael: the one thing we learned well from the iraq war after occupying it and fighting this battle, you cannot fight sunni jihadis and without sunnis. the only way is one of several -- the jihadis become more barbaric than the occupier. they themselves become colonial occupiers. the guy who created it was -- iraqis begins a feel like they were fighting two occupations.
the american one and then this jihadi. number three, these guys monopolize all of the grey, black, and white market economies. eastern syria has enriched themselves for centuries. that all exist today. a town in which people in charge are not syrians. they grew up there and are being told what to do by 18-year-old tunisians or iraqis that are from iraq. this franchise began as a foreign led franchise. now it is being led and eventually -- >> should we admire this? michael: no, you have to understand it in order to defeat it. what i'm pointing to is there is a fundamental vulnerability. the people on the ground do not want to be ordered by them but they need in alternative. charlie: which is exactly what happened in the awakening. one second. bernard-henri: if you take for example the case of mosul, what is happening is a battle which
will happen in the next month. they will need an alliance between the kurds and sunni. this is what is taking shape today. now, there is an emergency. the emergency is a bloodbath in paris as you had in new york. my son, my beloved son, was a lawyer. a member of a great american cabinet. he had his -- one of his best friends killed at the bataclan on friday night. the best friend of my son, a member of the new york lawyer cabinet. the emergency is to stop that, to make that impossible. for this, we don't have to reflect to make comparisons with iraq, with afghanistan. we, together, americans and france, has to act. what mr. obama should understand, no boots on the ground there means more blood on the ground here.
this is the question. i understand no boots on the ground, but it will mean more blood on our ground. in america and in france. the last thing i want to say -- isis is not hitler. hitler was a huge power. of course, isis is a new sort of fascism. the military power, isis is a paper tiger. if we decided really to win this war, it will be much shorter than one believes. when i listen to presidents of the war -- you know the story of this one who did not want to be a king -- i have the feeling today some do not really want to
win this war. this war against isis gives of the strange impression to be a war which we don't really want to win, but we have to win in order to prevent other mass massacres as we saw in paris and new york 14 years ago. to prevent other mass massacres. we have to eradicate isis, and it will be much more doable and easy and we believe with our strategies. charlie: i assume the president has heard all these arguments. >> he has. he tried to to create a ground force using americans and it did not work. he tried to recruit and train a syrian opposition army that can take on isis. the trick was, he told them it had to take on isis and novi assad.
you talked to a lot of the syrian opposition figures and they are focused on the government, which has been waging war on them for so many years. that restriction made it an impossible formula. another challenge the president has had is, even aside from the specifics of the strategy and the substance of the strategy, he at times does not convey the visceral feelings of urgency that seems to be appropriate to the moment. it is not in his nature. he is a reserved individual. but there is a desire in the body politic at times to see the leader express the kind of outrage and seriousness of purpose that comes out of that. charlie: that hollande is now demonstrating. bernard-henri: he is similar to barack obama. he is a pacifist in the bottom of his heart. but he understood on friday night that we have to uproot
this phenomenon before it is too late. it is still possible. charlie: with the help of u.s. air support. bernard-henri: i know, but on the ground there was help from america and from france. the so-called islamic state has been cut in the two since last week. it was not so hard to achieve. it has already been achieved. we can do a lot more. that is what president hollande seems to understand.
michael: the sunni arab tribal districts will be met with resistance. there are other insurgency groups that sometimes partner with isis that considers themselves allied with isis, allows themselves to come in and take terrain. they are not great soldiers, isis. they die like lemmings going off a cliff. the way they take syria is, they have so much money, they send themselves into sleeper cells and bribe their way in, and they appoint their men to run those militias. whether or not the rank or file realize it, they are being manipulated by isis.
charlie: matt, what would you do if you were advising the president? what would you do in response to what happened in paris? matt: going to that side of it, the counterterrorism side, and the actual ability of isis to carry out a relatively complex, coordinated attack, the concern here in the united states was, ok, what are we doing to protect the united states from an attack like this? there's a couple of things. one is to make sure we are getting the best intelligence. are we sharing what we are getting with our friends in the region? are they sharing that information with us? what is the actual information? are our defenses in place? do we have the right types of
defenses against aviation plots? and the longer-term problem, the longer-term challenge is to address the recruitment of americans as well as europeans from traveling to syria. there has been a real concern effort in the united states by the fbi and the intelligence community to identify anybody in the united states who might be susceptible to messaging isis, traveling to support isis, and possibly coming back to the united states. charlie: but the argument you are hearing is that you ought to use all the military might that you have in coalitions with other people to wipe out isis. that seems to be the proposal that is being recommended at this table by roger and bernard. and in some cases by hollande.
roger: in turkey, there have been unconscionable things happening there. there is a very porous border. we were just hearing about patients being sent across the border to be looked at in hospitals in turkey. i hope the president has been talking firmly about closing this conduit that has enabled isis to strengthen itself. france is our nato ally. the president of france has described this as an act of war. an act of war against a nato state is an act of war against us all. non-interventionism in syria has proven a disaster. we can debate what that demonstrates, but if we were present, let's imagine we did do something on the ground, and we were present in syria, as russia is present, wouldn't that give us a firmer base, potentially, to be part of the resolution of this intolerable, bleeding syrian situation? i think it's at least debatable. charlie: having talked to putin
about that, i can assure you that is one of the reasons he went in. he wanted to have skin in the game. roger: with great respect to president vladimir putin, why shouldn't president obama, the leader of the free world, the as much a part of the solution on the ground in syria as president putin? to do that, let's crush isis and take the territory and controls back. charlie: i know you have to go, but tell me what you are writing about in the new york times?
peter: the strategy in the long run and the sense that we don't find it satisfying in the short run. he's not putting boots on the ground, so we have another 14 or 15 months until he leaves office, and he is trying to see what can of a petition he can leave his successor in that time. it is a conundrum for a president who did come in on an antiwar platform, he has taken a lot of aggressive action at times, with the drone strikes, but as he comes toward the end of his presidency, he seems to be more and more reluctant to use what he sees as excessive military force. he sees one quagmire after another he is trying to keep out of. that is not the mood of the country today following the
paris attacks, which there is a great desire to protect ourselves and as people on this panel have said, wipe out isis. charlie: peter, thank you for joining us. peter: thank you for having me. charlie: you wanted to respond to something earlier? bernard-henri: if i had the chance to give advice to president obama, my advice would you be to think about his own legacy. he was so brave in domestic affairs. it was very hard to send special forces there. i don't understand his reluctancy today. he seems so strange, so out of himself. it is not the obama that so many american citizens loved, and summary french and foreign people saw as a sort of icon, it is no longer obama.
charlie: do you think this is more of the real obama than that was? bernard-henri: i hope not. i hope that the obama i met in in 2003, who was the senator of illinois and the brave, young man -- i hope this obama of 2003 is still alive in turkey today, and i hope so much. two cities have been struck in 14 years. new york on september 11, paris today. why these two cities? why?
what is the common point of new york and of paris? they have -- both of them -- what fascists hate more, the shining cities of new york and paris, the cities of culture, intelligence, and freedom, this is the incarnation of what these people hate more. let's unite, hollande and obama, to finish with this nightmare. in the peshmergas, we saw -- anyone -- charlie: but we cannot fight someone else's battle. who else other than the kurds? there are no saudi troops, -- onre are no turkey troops the ground.
michael: i was going to say, we actually have seen some successful policy in syria. i give the president some do for this, because it is not a knowledge. there were there were two programs that we funded. the second program, a mostly clandestine one, the cia has vetted about 40 different rebel militias since syria. syria.central they have given them weapons, antitank missiles. these guys have held the line -- army, it hasad's
been propped up by hezbollah and secretary of militias bundled into something called the national defense force. they have held the line. they have created a syrian tank graveyard in central syria. there is now such a concerning effort that a lot of these guys are being pushed back. the fact is, these guys are fighting well, keeping track of their weapons, not selling them to al qaeda or isis -- why? because the raison d'etre of the rebels was being met. we do not understand -- we talk so much about isis, the messianic components, the religious fundamentalism -- there is a political situation here, an anthropological situation. who is your number one enemy? you talk to analysts and they will say, excuse me, history did not start when mosul was invaded in 2014. bashar al assad was shooting 14-year-olds in the street,
killing babies. families ine their home. you want to talk about why the sunni population radicalized or allowed groups like all nusra and isis to come in? it is because of this. roger is right. the consequences that we said would be of intervention happened as a direct result of nonintervention. french fighter jets into damascus, and john kerry calls hollande and says we have to do a patent was doing. and the sunnis look at the united states and now -- bernard-henri: the day was august 29 of 2013. it was a black day. during the same day, the american president said, the red line is crossed, we have to act. at the end of the day, he came on tv and said, i change my mind, we have to ask congress and such. it is true that isis and bashar
al assad are twins. false twins, that don't look like each other, but they are twins. and we know -- they don't look like each other, but they are twins. bashar assad eliminated from jail all the radical islamists who are today making up the fighters, and number two, we did not intervene there. the reason of nonintervention is isis. ♪
♪ >> look at where we are now. we had this conference in vienna, john kerry says we have cut a deal. and it is as follows. everyone in syria will commit to a cease-fire, except al qaeda and isis. so the regime and over 1000 different militia groups beholden to god knows who, they will hold down their arm, but al qaeda and isis will be allowed to fight because we are fighting them. this is going to resolve this crisis? i have talked to some arab and syrian friends, and they were terrified that the secretary of state can say something so ridiculous. it does not even rise to the level of utopianism.
he looked like a dog who just went through the car wash with the top down, like he is defeated. and it is true. charlie: but this comes to where are the coalition partners the united states has? what are they doing, and are they doing enough? when they started the ratcheting up of u.s. airstrikes, guess what happened? they pushed back. bernard-henri: the time of leadership from behind, unfortunately, is over. it was possible in libya, it is not possible today. number two, the result of our policy, all of us, the west and the arabs in syria, is a disaster. 260,000 deaths in syria, one million refugees, the biggest in history. charlie: so there has to be a massive, armed attack -- bernard-henri: not massive. i don't think it will be massive.
when i hear that, it reminds me of what we said the first time i was at the stable 21 years ago during the serbian crisis. it was exactly the same. we cannot intervene. we will need hundreds of thousands of soldiers. when the decision was taken, it was finished in a few days. all these serbian butchers escaped like rabbits, very quickly. these are not the serbs, but they are not hitler. charlie: and they are not a
state. bernard-henri: and they are not a state. and you cannot make a war -- of course it is nonintervention -- but you cannot get this impression to wage a war without willing to win it. get rid of isis. michael: by the way, we get this idea that nonintervention means 150,000 troops on the ground or nothing at all. nobody is saying that. charlie: i mean senator mccain. michael: i don't know, you would have to ask him. but frankly, it is too late, because the russians have established their own no-fly zone.
they finally did it because they knew we weren't going to lift a finger to stop them. for the last 18 months, we had how many u.s. aircraft flying in the skies in syria, dropping bombs on isis? could they really have not used as weapons to just keep the syrian aircraft away? bernard-henri: if we cannot do more, let's have the kurds -- they are the real boots on the ground. charlie: the president would say we are helping the kurds -- bernard-henri: i am back from the front above mosul. they have 4000 for maybe 2000 or 3000 soldiers. they are so weak, even on the ground, we could do much more, why don't we do it? charlie: what if this attack took place in new york rather than paris? matt: it would have been different. i am sure you would hear some of the same language from president obama than we would have heard from president hollande.
i think that is one of the sad things for me about seeing the president's body language. there was no sense -- yes, he talked about france being america's oldest ally, but there is no sense that we would have to come to the defense and help of france today. look, the white house said for a while that isis was not like al qaeda, it was a regional threat, not a global threat. here we have seen three teams of terrorists, three, dispatched from brussels from another country, renting cars. they have identified targets. the bataclan had been mentioned before, because that is a place where jewish associations have often that. at a football stadium, with france and germany, the symbol of european postwar
reconciliation. that was the second target. and a restaurant. this was not 9/11. it was a pretty highly coordinated attack in one of the terrorists are still on the run, so let's forget about the notion that it is a threat to us all. it is not enough to say we will defeat isis. we will? when? after how many more of these attacks? none of us thinks that taking this territory back will end the terrorist threat, but it will reduce it, i believe. charlie: matt, one last question for you -- what do you think paris changes? matt: i do think paris changes the way we see isis. this was not a surprise from an intelligence standpoint. back in january in belgium, a cell was dismantled that had the makings. almost a year ago, we saw this
kind of attack being within the realm of possibility by isis, but the fact that it did occur, the fact that they were able to put this off, does demonstrate the type of threat we face. it is a global threat, i do agree with roger in that regard -- a global threat from isis. it will stiffen our resolve. i think the focus on body language and rhetoric is misplaced. we did talk about what we are doing, what can we do, what are the right options, but i think this elevates isis in terms of the public attention and will get and it will strengthen our resolve to do more when we have good options to do so. charlie: thank you so much. peter baker joined us earlier, white house correspondent from the new york times. it is great to have you. thank you. we will continue this series of examinations on what happened in paris and the consequences